Trump, Clinton, and A Tale Of Two Racisms
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, is working tirelessly to distance herself from her (former) friend, Republican nominee Donald Trump. Her method in doing so suggests that she is somehow critically different from him. But, young people of color don’t seem to be buying that claim. This begs the question: Why are her supporters struggling to understand this dissonance? Well, it’s likely because many of those in the Clinton camp have a problematic definition of racism and, to a larger extent, systematic oppression in general.
Far too often, it is assumed that racism and many other public forms of oppression are reserved for conservative, usually Republican, people in America. Mythological ideas about old southern racists grasping their confederate flags and antebellum nostalgia still emerge in the collective psyche when folks discuss explicitly racist manifestations of hatred in the United States. The problem with this conception is that it only focuses on one type of racism: the explicit kind. And, even then, it doesn’t acknowledge the ways that racism has transformed into colorblind systems of oppression which are usually embraced by younger, “liberal”, upwardly-mobile Whites, precisely the types who support Hillary Clinton.
This limited perception of racism leaves out the ways that many people in power (especially White, affluent, generationally wealthy people) maneuver through society without any intention of ending racial oppression. In this context, people of color who have voiced opposition to Clinton (and also Bernie Sanders), are repeatedly disregarded, overlooked, and effectively silenced as Clinton’s supporters ignore their political concerns as they espouse their own form of “egalitarian liberalism.”
The idea that Trump and Clinton are diametrically opposed to one another politically is the same substance that perpetuates legends and animates fairy tales. In a two-party system like our’s, it is nearly impossible for the two presumptive nominees to be drastically distinct from one another without risking a serious bid from a third-party candidate. This is just a fact of our politics.
But, the concern here isn’t even how similar the candidates are politically. Rather, it is the idea that just because Clinton is a Democrat and calls herself liberal, that she is necessarily anti- or even non-racist.
Case and point: recently, Clinton’s super PAC has ramped up advertisements focused on Trump’s lack of respect for minorities, women, and people with disabilities. The candidate and her supporters rely upon the multitudes of inappropriate, racist, sexist, and simply vile words Trump has used in addressing commentators, opponents, and many others as evidence that we have all got to get behind Clinton if we are going to defeat him. Simultaneously, there isn’t even the slightest intention of surveying the ways that Clinton’s tenure in the White House, her career in the Senate, and her subsequent presidential campaigns have used anti-Black rhetoric to gain power and prestige.
Clinton’s supporters (and Sanders supporters for that matter) will find themselves disappointed in November if they do not begin to grapple with the fact that implicit racism and the support of policies which systematically criminalize, exclude, and economically deprive people of color do not belong exclusively to conservatives or Republicans. The fact is: Whiteness is a unifying and organizing principle which fundamentally regulates public life. Until people in power begin to address the ways that whiteness functions socially, economically, and politically (not to the exclusion of heterosexism, queer antagonism, transphobia, and other forms of domination and repression but in tandem with them), fans of the leading White liberal leader in the United States will find that they, too, are assisting in the preservation of the systems many people of color have been working so fervently to dismantle.
What’s worse, as young people of color have been considering sitting out this year’s election cycle for a host of reasons, those liberal cheerleaders who want so badly for us to cast our votes toward our own demise will only further alienate these groups of voters who have many other ways to engage politically. Political participation isn’t just a vote. Young people everyday are finding innovative ways to act politically – whether by petitioning their local officials on single issues, joining civic organizations which put forth clear grievances to be redressed, or by working to register new voters. The point is simply that voting for Clinton or Trump is much like choosing between McDonald’s or Burger King, the flu or pneumonia, spoiled milk or curdled cheese. It’s a matter of picking a poison.
Some of us are choosing not to pick at all not because we haven’t formed clear political opinions, not because we’re naive, not even because we don’t value the vote. Rather, it is because we clearly see the trick bag placed before us. Perhaps, it’s time the White liberal establishment gets some clarity too.
Photo: YouTube
In the context of climate change, choosing “not to pick at all” seems like a dangerous luxury to take. If folks are so distrustful of existing government (and rightly so), the solution is to recreate a trustworthy government (in my opinion, by all means necessary). I don’t think the best solution is to yield ground and let others choose for us, while our people die and the planet burns. We need to step up, not sit out.
I agree about the urgency, but the right response to that urgency is not necessarily to engage in what you’ve called a ‘luxury’. When the planet is at stake, it is literally fatal to leave right or wrong to a game of chance or to the ‘majority’.
100% agree. We’ve gotta do way more than vote & hope. Voting is probably the least impactful thing we can do, but it’s a useful part of a diversity of tactics.
‘Political participation isn’t just a vote’
People not only conflate these two, but then use voting to be entirely apolitical in their day to day lives, which renders your vote, not just useless, but potentially harmful.
Word.
Yes, I agree. Useful if applied with diversity of tactics.
Problem is, life will get very bad, very quickly if Trump wins. That is the reality.
unfortunately sitting out the vote doesn’t make much of a statement. voter turnout is dismally low as it is with so many purposefully disenfranchized that no one seems to care or notice if people don’t vote. I think people like Clinton would be honestly happier if people weren’t even involved in politics.
a vote for third party candidate or a write-in vote would send a stronger message than staying home. I get that the fight is much bigger than voting, but I’ll take any weapon I can get.
Jenn, I’m so inspired by the work that BYP is doing and can tell it’s animated by love. I agree with 95% of what you articulate here. It’s clear and on target — except, as a black woman, I’m thinking that in this electoral situation, even those who choose not to perpetuate an unjust system must still live under it. It will be imposed on us whether we try to steer it or not. While we work to build something new, the old must be decommissioned and dismantled. (But not voting doesn’t do that. It just leaves a sick system to fester in parallel to or poison whatever good work the builders of the new are able to achieve.) I believe the practice of harm reduction is important for Black people to thrive, because it makes space for us to work for more expansive anti-racist policies. I would urge people to vote for the lesser of two oppressors because one is more responsive to reason and demand than the other.
The same logic applies within the party system. I was a Bernie supporter because he first addressed the value of Black lives — inadequately, yes, but it showed more willingness listen than apologizing for super-predators then lecturing activists about policy change. Even the apology is further along the continuum of non-racism than never admitting that vile statements are harmful then making a virtue out of the willingness to hurt people verbally and literally. So reducing the harm (or picking the least harmful) keeps us from playing wack-a-mole with overt, triggering racism while we try to remain physically safe and work to build a new system. I don’t think we endorse the present system with our votes as much as we choose the ground on which we will continue to fight.